Talk:Jonathan Creek

Caroline Quentin

Why did she leave the sinking ship at the end of series three? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.19.198 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the ship was sinking. Duh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.200.102 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Guest cast

I think the distinction between actors better known for comedy playing straight roles and other guest actors was useful. Dbromage 02:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Anyone else think there should be full plot summaries on this page? We have the spolier warning in place, why not reveal the mysteries rather than force people to watch each episode to see what happens? SJH 23:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed but they have listed series 5 as the last few episode of series 4. There are six episodes to a series, not three.

No, "they" have listed the series as they were made and broadcast. The article quite clearly states that series 4 and 5 were each made up of three episodes. Series 4 was broadcast in 2003 and 5 in 2004. Source I have also removed the expansion tag as Wikipedia is not a place for extended plot summaries and somebody has already taken the time to write short summaries. Brad 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got to disagree there. I distinctly remember at the time that Series 4 was split into two segments, each made up of 3 episodes. I think it was something to do with the scripts being late for the last three so they couldn't get them filmed in time. Besides, what's called Series 4 and 5 on the page are just Series 4 in all the DVD boxsets.Newda898 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The BBC programme catalogue explicitly states that they are two different series and with almost a year between the broadcasts it's difficult to justify calling them "segments". I can't see anything about the scripts being late on Media Guardian, Broadcast Now or Digital Spy. Screenonline says "four series" and the official site just lists the episodes without mentioning series at all. As for the DVD combining them into one series, that doesn't necessarily mean that is how they were supposed to be -- it could just be the BBC making sure people get their monies worth. Finally, this statement from the BBC explicity states that the 2004 series was commissioned after the 2003 series had finished its broadcast.[1] Brad 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Duffle coat

I'm pretty sure the bit about it being Davis' own coat comes from The World of Jonathan Creek, published 1997. Unfortunately, I can't find my copy. Does anyone else have a copy to confirm this? Daibhid C 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's said on page 80 in the Behind the Scenes chapter under The Costume Designer "His duffel coat has become a bit of a trademark, and for the first series Alan's own one was used." Newda898 18:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

J.S. Bach?

I'm a bit confused by what

"In keeping with the mysterious allusions that pervade Jonathan Creek's investigations, the name of the series is itself a cryptic translation of the German composer Johann Bach, who in his final composition encoded his own name in the notes of the musical score."

means. Can anybody explain? Bob talk 11:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Johann = German equivalent of Jonathan. Bach = stream (in German) = Creek (synonym of stream). Hardly that cryptic, and just a guess. :) Stephenb (Talk) 11:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, that's quite good, I'd not made the connection. It might be worth explaining that it's a Germanic equivalent rather than a puzzle in the main article - I was expecting it to be an anagram or something to do with the theme tune because of the bit about The Art of Fugue. Bob talk 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Jonathan is not the equivalent of Johann; John is. It's a different name, related but different. I've taken out the claim. It's been marked with "Citation needed", but none has been provided. I think someone noticed an apparent relationship, but I don't think there's anything in it. If the translation was closer (John Creek or John Brook), if music and musical games were part of the basis of the show, if there was something in the fiction of the show or in the work of the writer to support it, then maybe. But as it is there's nothing in it. Klippa (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

John is not close enough to Jonathan (being the diminutive)?!?! Cryptic/misleading use of language is also very much part of the show, too - whether music or not. I don't think you can say there's nothing in it, though I agree that it required a citation. Stephenb (Talk) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Jon is a diminutive of Jonathan. John is a completely different name. Jonathan has the extra -nathan element, which means 'gift' or 'give'. (Matthew has the same 2 elements in reverse order.) We can't just put something here because someone has noticed something which might be a playful game of the sort that might appear in the fiction of the show. Certainly not one as tenuous as this. (If we are going to do that, here a couple more off the top of my head: Jonathan Creek's initials are the same as Jesus Christ's, Jonathan is a Christ-like figure, with his long unkempt hair, habit of explaining mysteries and performance of the occasional miracle; his companion's name is Maddy, short for Madelaine, the same name as Jesus's companion Mary Magdalene. Or: Maddy's surname is Magellan, as in Ferdinand Magellan, the great navigator, who began the first circumnavigation of the world and receives the credit for it even though he died early in the voyage and the circumnavigation was completed by Del Cano.) We should however mention David Renwick's assertion that he called the character Jonathan Creek because he'd seen it as a placename in the US and liked it. Whether that's any more true than Terry Nation's story of the naming of the Daleks, it is relevant to the name. Klippa (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

John 'is also a common diminutive of Jonathan (and extremely common - I know at least two three), just as "Dick" is a diminutive of Richard, or "Steve" for Stephen :). If you can find a citation for your "American placename" then by all means add it. I'm not arguing for the JS Bach to be added back in, BTW, just that some of your arguments for removing it were tenuous in themselves - the best argument for removing it was that there was no citation. Stephenb (Talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

John is only used as a form of Jonathan in error. Either it's actually Jon and it's being misunderstood by people who only hear it or the people who use it are misspelling Jon. But in fact this is irrelevant; John has nothing to do with it. The suggestion was that Jonathan is a translation of the German Johann. It certainly isn't. As in English, Johann and Jonathan are independent names in German (although Jonathan is uncommon). And Johann is not used as a form of Jonathan in German, not even in error. The pronunciations are too different for such an error. (As for the placename, <jonathancreek.com> mentions it, but it's no use as a source; it doesn't quote Renwick.) Klippa (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

John is only used as a form of Jonathan in error. Either it's actually Jon and it's being misunderstood by people who only hear it or the people who use it are misspelling Jon. Untrue, sorry. As I said, it is extremely common to find John used as a diminutive for Jonathan. It's not an error, just the way most people contract the name (including by those who are called "Jonathan" - as I said, I know three people that do this, and they're not in error!). I didn't know that Jonathan was a name in German, how interesting. Nevertheless, I guess most people (possibly including Renwick?) would suggest that the nearest translation of Johann in English would either be Jon, John or (to then expand it) Jonathan. Pronunciation is irrelevant here. Let's ask the question: If you were to "translate" Johann Bach to be a slightly cryptic English equivalent, what name would you choose? Jonathan Creek seems to be a perfectly adequate choice. (Again, this is not to say it should be in the article.) Stephenb (Talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Misusing John as a form of Jonathan does happen. But it is wrong. Have a look at any names book or any of the many online equivalents. Have a look at the Wiktionary entries for that matter. John and Jonathan both are Hebrew names, but they are different names. John is no closer to Jonathan than it is to Matthew. John is 'God is gracious'. The J- part is God, as it is in many , many Hebrew names, including Jonathan. But Jonathan is a different name, with a different second element, 'God's gift'. Matthew is also 'God's gift', but the J- element appears after the Nath-/Math- element. Those name books will give Jon as the short form of Jonathan; they won't give John. And they won't list Jonathan as cognate with Johann, Sean, Ian, Ion, Juan, Giovanni, Ivan and the rest. If you were to translate Johann Bach, you would get John Brook or John Creek, as I said way back. (Likewise people translate Giuseppe Verdi to get Joseph Green or Johann Strauss to get John Ostrich (or Bouquet; there are 2 different Strausses in German).) I can't speak for David Renwick, but I'd be very surprised if he would mistranslate Johann as Jonathan. He seems to me the type of writer who would be instinctively careful with the correct traditional forms of names. If Jonathan Creek was ever to be referred to by a short form of his name it would be the correct Jon rather than John. Klippa (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say, that perhaps, if the original claim is correct (doubtful), maybe David Renwick made this mistake? Just because it is literally not the same, or even Jonathan is not connected to Johann in actuality BUT that does not mean that he did not choose both Jonathan and Creek to reflect the name of Johann Bach? 92.3.255.93 (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) There is no "right" or "wrong" - just how people commonly use and contract the name. It doesn't matter how the name(s) evolved, just how they are used today! I'm also not claiming Renwick would mistranslate Johann as Jonathan directly, just that it would be a possible cryptic translation against how (perhaps less informed people) would translate the name, and "Jonathan Creek" sounds better than "Jon Creek". In other words, it wouldn't matter what is "correct". I understand where you are coming from, but you still can't claim there can be nothing in it based on a "right" translation, because that's not what is required. Stephenb (Talk) 08:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ali Bongo reference

The comparison between Ali Bongo is not substantiated, and since it compares the genuine stage magician to an insensitive womanising idiot, could it be considered libellous? Or at least unpleasant. 87.236.70.17 (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the comparison is to Jonathan Creek, not Adam Klaus, but I could be wrong. Stephenb (Talk) 14:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the reference, you can see that it is clearly about Jonathan Creek. However, the statement as it stands is at the end of a paragraph about Adam Klaus. I suggest that the text be moved to a different paragraph. JBrusey (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Head

I made the reference to Antonhy Head in the cast list a bit more explicit. I know he's only in the first episode, but posters of him are seen throughout the rest of the season so he's clearly still meant to be Adam Klaus. Also, I thought a prominent actor like him warranted a bit more explicit a reference.Captain Chaos (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to explain why he was replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.142.115 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that between the pilot and the series he'd committed to Buffy and couldn't do both. It's in the article (last paragraph of the section 'Concept and casting'). Britmax (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

untrue statement?

I've removed the following line from the article:

... or when he was forced to hire a midget as a bodyguard in order to appear more politically correct.

Referring to the Adam Klaus character. I recently watched all of Jonathan Creek and I don't remember this. No episode guide seems to mention it either. Since it's only used as an example, I thought I'd remove it. risk (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely happened. I don't remember the exact episode it was in, but I remember it backfiring when the midget was eaten by a snake. (Goodness, how ridiculous does that sound?) Frickative 22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It was The Seer of the Sands from series 4. And yes the small guy was eaten by a python! In the story, Adam was told to hire him in order to appear more caring to the disadvantaged. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I missed that one. I've put it back. Sorry about this. risk (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New Series?

Does anyone know if there is any plans to make one? I LOVE this show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.241.29 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alan Davies just said this on his Twitter account: "Have just received the new Jonathan Creek script. Shooting in the summer,90min. Sadly,the BBC want to put it out next Easter, not at Xmas.." - [Source: http://twitter.com/alandavies1/status/1566200224] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.187.184 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DVD Release

The article has been updated to say that 'The Grinning Man' is being released on DVD in October. May we have a source for that information please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.10.153 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarity to other shows

I think there is a similarity to "House". The puzzle solving desire of both House and Creek seem very similar to me. The relationship on the brink between House and his boss Cutty has many similarities to Creek and Maddie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.64.27 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add I think Jonathan Creek shares more in common with Monk than The Medium due to the fact they both use inteligence to solve the crimes.79.76.73.97 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Renwick's inspiration was actually Columbo. Ref: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12245003.Art_of_illusion_creates_magicalmystery_David_Belcher_meets_the_men_behind_the_successful_Jonathan_Creek_series_as_they_gear_up_for_a_Boxing_Day_special_with_a_Scots_twist/ 83.104.249.240 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140730042551/http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/jonathan-creek-gets-creepy-976499 to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/jonathan-creek-gets-creepy-976499

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120805221145/http://usf.usfca.edu/pj//creek_corcos.htm to http://usf.usfca.edu/pj//creek_corcos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)